Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 89–119 | Cite as

Geophysical Characterization of the Salna Sinking Zone, Garhwal Himalaya, India

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Infrastructure and communication facilities are repeatedly affected by ground deformation in Gharwal Himalaya, India; for effective remediation measures, a thorough understanding of the real reasons for these movements is needed. In this regard, we undertook an integrated geophysical and geotechnical study of the Salna sinking zone close to the Main Central Thrust in Garhwal Himalaya. Our geophysical data include eight combined electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and induced polarization imaging (IPI) profiles spanning 144–600 m, with 3–10 m electrode separation in the Wenner–Schlumberger configuration, and five micro-gravity profiles with 10–30 m station spacing covering the study region. The ERT sections clearly outline the heterogeneity in the subsurface lithology. Further, the ERT, IPI, and shaliness (shaleyness) sections infer the absence of clayey horizons and slip surfaces at depth. However, the Bouguer gravity analysis has revealed the existence of several faults in the subsurface, much beyond the reach of the majority of ERT sections. These inferred vertical to subvertical faults run parallel to the existing major lineaments and tectonic elements of the study region. The crisscross network of inferred faults has divided the entire study region into several blocks in the subsurface. Our studies stress that the sinking of the Salna village area is presently taking place along these inferred vertical to subvertical faults. The Chamoli earthquake in March 1999 probably triggered seismically induced ground movements in this region. The absence of few gravity-inferred faults in shallow ERT sections may hint at blind faults, which could serve as future source(s) for geohazards in the study region. Soil samples at two sites of study region were studied in a geotechnical laboratory. These, along with stability studies along four slope sections, have indicated the critical state of the study region. Thus, our integrated studies emphasize the crucial role of micro-gravity in finding fine subsurface structure at deeper depth level; supported by ERT and IPI at shallow depth intervals, they can satisfactorily explain the Salna sinking zone close to Lesser Himalaya. The geotechnical studies also lend support to these findings. These integrated studies have yielded a better understanding of the mass-wasting mechanism for the study region.

Keywords

Geohazards Sinking zone Landslides Gravity survey Electrical resistivity tomography Induced polarization tomography Slope stability study 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors convey their sincere thanks to Prof. A. K. Pachauri, Earth Sciences Department, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee for helpful discussions. The second author acknowledges the financial support received from MHRD, India, during the research pursued at the Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India.

References

  1. Bichler A, Bobrowsky P, Best M, Douma M, Hunter J, Calvert T, Burns R (2004) Three dimensional mapping of a landslide using a multi-geophysical approach: the Quesnel Forks landslide. Landslides 1:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P (2001) Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293:1442–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bláha P, Mrlina J, Nešvara J (1998) Gravimetric investigation of slope deformations. Explor Geophys Remote Sens Environ J 1:21–24Google Scholar
  4. Bogoslovsky VA, Ogilvy AA (1977) Geophysical methods for investigation of landslides. Geophysics 42(3):562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers JE, Wilkinson PB, Kuras O, Ford JR, Gunn DA, Meldrum PI, Pennington CVL, Weller AL, Hobbs PRN, Ogilvy RD (2011) Three-dimensional geophysical anatomy of an active landslide in Lias Group mudrocks, Cleveland Basin, UK. Geomorphology 125:472–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colangelo G, Lapenna V, Perrone A, Piscitelli S, Telesca L (2006) 2D Self-Potential tomographies for studying groundwater flows in the Varoc d’Izzo landslide (Basilicata, southern Italy). Eng Geol 88:274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cosenza P, Marmet E, Rejiba F, Cui JY, Tabbagh A, Charlery Y (2006) Correlation between geotechnical and electrical data: a case study at Garchy in France. J Appl Geophys 60:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Del Gaudio V, Wasowski J, Pierri P, Mascia U, Calcagnile G (2000) Gravimetric study of a retrogressive landslide in southern Italy. Surv Geophys 21:391–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drahor MG, Göktürkler G, Berge MA, Kurtulmus TÖ (2006) Application of electrical resistivity tomography technique for investigation of landslides: a case study from Turkey. Environ Geol 50:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erginal AE, Ozturk B, Ekinci YL, Demirci A (2009) Investigation of the nature of slip surface using geochemical analyses and 2-D geoelectrical tomography: a case study from Lapseki area, NW Turkey. Environ Geol 58(6):1164–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedel S, Thielen A, Springman SM (2006) Investigation of a slope endangered by rainfall induced landslides using 3D resistivity tomography and geotechnical testing. J Appl Geol 60:100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaur VK, Chander R, Sarkar I, Khattri KN, Sinvhal H (1984) Seismicity and the state of stress from investigations of local earthquakes in the Kumaon Himalaya. Tectonophysics 118:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Havenith HB, Jongmans D, Abdrakhmatov K, Trefois P, Delvaux D, Torgoev IA (2000) Geophysical investigations of seismically induced surface effects: case study of a landslide in the Suusamyr valley, Kyrgyzstan. Surveys Geophys 21:349–369Google Scholar
  14. Hayley K, Bentley LR, Gharibi M, Nightingále M (2007) Low temperature dependence of electrical resistivity: implications for near surface geophysical monitoring. Geophys Res Lett 34:L18402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Israil M, Pachauri AK (2003) Geophysical characterization of a landslide site in the Himalayan foothill region. J Asian Earth Sci 22:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jin G, Torres-Verdin V, Devarajan S, Toumelin E, Thomas EC (2007) Pore scale analysis of the Waxman-Smits shaly sand conductivity model. Petrophysics 48(2):104–120Google Scholar
  17. Jomard H, Lebourg T, Eric T (2007) Identification of the gravitational boundary in weathered gneiss by geophysical survey: La Clapière landslide (France). J Appl Geophys 62:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jongmans D, Garambois S (2007) Geophysical investigation of landslides: a review. Bull De la Societe Geologique De France 178(2):101–112Google Scholar
  19. Kayal JR (2001) Microearthquake activity in some parts of the Himalaya and the tectonic model. Tectonophysics 339:331–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khattri KN, Tyagi AK (1983) Seismicity patterns in the Himalayan plate boundary and identification of the areas of high seismic potential. Tectonophysics 96:281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khattri KN, Chander R, Gaur VK, Sarkar I, Kumar S (1989) New seismological results on the tectonics of the Garhwal Himalaya. Proc Indian Acad Sci 98:91–109Google Scholar
  22. Kumar G, Agarwal NC (1975) Geology of Srinagar-Nandprayag Area (Alkananda Valley), Chamoli, Garhwal and Tehri Garhwal Districts, Kumaun Himalaya, Uttar Pradesh. Himal Geol 5:29–59Google Scholar
  23. Lapenna V, Lorenzo P, Perrone A, Piscitelli S, Sdao F, Rizzo E (2003) High resolution geoelectrical tomographies in the study of Giarrossa landslide (southern Italy). Bull Eng Geol Environ 62:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lapenna V, Lorenzo P, Perrone A, Piscitelli S, Rizzo E, Sdao F (2005) 2D electrical resistivity imaging of some complex landslides in the Lucanian Apennine chain, southern Italy. Geophysics 70(3):B11–B18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lebourg T, Tric E, Guglielmi Y, Cappa F, Charmoille A, Bouissou S (2003) Geophysical survey to understand failure mechanisms involved on deep sated landslides. Geophys Res Abstr 5:01043Google Scholar
  26. Lebourg T, Binet S, Tric E, Jomard H, El Bedoui S (2005) Geophysical survey to estimate the3D sliding surface and the 4D evolution of the water pressure on part of a deep seated landslide. Terra Nova 17(5):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loj M (2010) Expected discontinuous terrain deformation with the micro-gravity method in a selected area of coal exploration. In: Near surface 2010—16th European meeting of environmental and engineering geophysics, 6–8 Sept 2010, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Loke MH (2006) RES2DINV ver 3.55 Rapid 2D resistivity and IP inversion using the Least-squares method, Software Manual, p 139Google Scholar
  29. Loke MH, Barker RD (1995a) Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics 60:1682–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loke MH, Barker RD (1995b) Improvements to the Zohdy method for the inversion of resistivity sounding and pseudosection data. Comput Geosci 21:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loke MH, Barker RD (1996a) Rapid Least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudo-sections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophys Prospect 44:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loke MH, Barker RD (1996b) Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophys Prospect 44:499–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mauritsch HJ, Seiberl W, Ranier A, Romer A, Schneiderbauer K, Sendlhoper GP (2000) Geophysical investigation of large landslides in the Carnic region of southern Austria. Eng Geol 56:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCann DM, Forster A (1990) Reconnaissance geophysical methods in landslide investigations. Eng Geol 29:59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mondal SK, Sastry RG, Gautam PK, Pachauri AK (2007) High resolution resistivity imaging of Naitwar Bazar Landslide, Garhwal Himalaya, India. In: Proceedings of 20th symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems (SAGEEP), pp 629–635Google Scholar
  36. Mondal SK, Sastry RG, Gautam PK, Pachauri AK (2008) High resolution 2D electrical resistivity tomography to characterize active Naitwar Bazar Landslide, Garhwal Himalaya, India—a case study. Curr Sci 94(7):871–875Google Scholar
  37. Ni JF, Barazangi M (1984) Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone: geometry of the underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. J Geophys Res 89:1147–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niwas S, Gupta PK, de Lima OAL (2007) Nonlinear electrical conductivity response of shaly-sand reservoir. Curr Sci 92(5):612–617Google Scholar
  39. Oldenburg DW, Li Y (1994) Inversion of induced polarization data. Geophysics 59:1327–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pachauri AK, Pant M (1992) Landslide hazard mapping based on geological attributes. Eng Geol 32(1–2):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park S (1998) Fluid migration in the vadose zone from 3D inversion of resistivity monitoring data. Geophysics 63:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perrone A, Iannuzzi A, Lapenna V, Lorenzo P, Piscitelli S, Rizzo E, Sdao F (2004) High-resolution electrical imaging of the Varco d’Izzo earthflow (southern Italy). J Appl Geophys 56:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piegari E, Catandella V, Di Mario L, Milano L, Nicodemi M, Solovieri MG (2009) Electrical resistivity tomography and statistical analyses in landslide monitoring: a conceptual approach. J Appl Geophys 68(2):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ranjan G, Rao ASR (2005) Basic and applied soil mechanics. New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  45. Rao NP, Kumar P, Kalpna T, Tsukuda T, Ramesh DS (2006) The devastating Muzaffarabad earthquake of 8 October 2005: new insights into Himalayan seismicity and tectonics. Gondwana Res 9:365–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rautela P, Lakhera RC (2000) Landslide risk analysis between Giri and Tons Rivers in Himachal Himalaya (India). JAG 2(3/4):153–160Google Scholar
  47. Ravindran KV, Philip G (1999) 29 March 1999 Chamoli earthquake: a preliminary report on earthquake-induced landslides using IRS-1C/1D data. Curr Sci 77(1):21–25Google Scholar
  48. Revil A, Cathles LM, Losh S Nunn JA (1998) Electrical conductivity in shaly sands with geophysical applications. J Geophys Res 103(B10):23925–23936Google Scholar
  49. Revil A, Hermitte D, Spangenberg E Cochémé JJ (2002) Electrical properties of zeolitized volcanoclastic materials. J Geophys Res 107(B8):2155–2168Google Scholar
  50. Rybakov V, Goldshmidt V, Fleischer L, Rolstein Y (2001) Cave detection and 4-D monitoring: a micro-gravity case history near the Dead Sea. Lead Edge 8:896–900Google Scholar
  51. Saha AK, Gupta RP, Sarkar I, Arora MK, Csaplovics E (2005) An approach for GIS-based statistical landslide susceptibility zonation—with a case study in the Himalayas. Landslides 2(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saraf AK (2000) IRS-1C-PAN depicts Chamoli earthquake induced landslides in Garhwal Himalayas, India. Int Remote Sens 21(12):2345–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sarkar S, Kanungo DP (2002) Landslides in relation to terrain parameters—a remote sensing and GIS approach. Map India—2002Google Scholar
  54. Sarkar I, Chander R, Khattri KN, Sharma PK (1993) Evidence from small magnitude earthquakes on the active tectonics of Northwest Garhwal Himalaya. J Himal Geol 4:279–284Google Scholar
  55. Sastry RG, Mondal SK, Pachauri AK (2006) 2D Electrical resistivity tomography of a landslide in Garhwal Himalaya. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference & exposition on petroleum geophysics (Kolkata). Society of Petroleum Geophysicists, India, pp 997–1001Google Scholar
  56. Sastry RG, Mondal SK, Gautam PK, Pachauri AK (2007) Integrated geophysical approach for mapping an active landslide in Himalaya. In: Proceedings of 20th symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems (SAGEEP), pp 248–254Google Scholar
  57. Sastry RG, Mondal SK, Gautam PK, Pachauri AK (2008) Electrical resistivity tomography and gravity studies for active landslide characterization at Naitwar, Garhwal Himalaya, India. In: Poster presentation in 7th international conference & exposition on petroleum geophysics, Hyderabad, organized by Society of Petroleum Geophysicists, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmutz M, Guerin R, Andrieux P, Maquaire O (2009) Determination of the 3-D structure of an earthflow by geophysical methods the case of Super Sauze, in the French southern Alps. J Appl Geophys 68(4):500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Serra O (1984) Fundamentals of welllog interpretation vol 1: the acquisition of logging data. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  60. Shevnin V, Mousatov A, Ryjov A, Delgado-Rodriquez O (2007) Estimation of clay content in soil based on resistivity modeling and laboratory measurements. Geophys Prospect 55(2):265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990) Applied geophysics. Cambridge University Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilkinson PB, Chambers JE, Meldrum PI, Gunn DA, Ogilvy RD, Kuras O (2010) Predicting the movements of permanently installed electrodes on an active landslide using time-lapse geoelectrical resistivity data only. Geophys J Int 183:543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yang C, Liu H, Lee C (2004) Landslide investigation in the Li-Shan area using resistivity image profiling method. In: Paper presented in SEG 74th annual meeting, pp 1417–1420Google Scholar
  64. Zanetell (2011) IP and seismic 3D imaging of landslides, Publ. No. FHWA-CFC/TD-11-006, US Department Of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminstration, pp 1–128Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesIIT RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Capstone Geo Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd.UppalIndia

Personalised recommendations